Re: libusb status?
Benjamin Berg writes: > On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 12:35 -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: > >> Speaking of which, what *are* we expected to do? Aleksei on IRC >> suggested that the preferred solution is to swap the BuildRequires to >> pkgconfig(libusb) - is that right? Is this going to stick around, or is >> it going away too? > > Ideally you should switch BuildRequires to pkgconfig(libusb-1.0) I > would say. Many packages will support building against the newer libusb > API just fine. The libusb (now libusb-compat-0.1) package is just a > small wrapper library that bridges some API differences. Thanks for the clarification (and assistance investigating)! Be well, --Robbie signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: libusb status?
Hi, On Wed, 2022-03-09 at 12:35 -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Hi, today I went to build grub2 in rawhide and got this: > > DEBUG util.py:444: No matching package to install: 'libusb-devel' > > grub2 has a `BuildRequires: libusb-devel`, and suddenly that package > doesn't exist anymore. libusb was apparently dead.package'd two days > ago. > > So this is sudden, and I want to check what's going on here. I would > have expected a change proposal about this[1], or at least some email about > what's going on, what we're expected to do, etc.. Yes, I can't remember why, but apparently I forgot to do some of the changes that were approved back then. As such, a few days ago I went ahead and made the switch. This meant getting rid of libusbx and also making the switch from libusb to libusb-compat-0.1. > Speaking of which, what *are* we expected to do? Aleksei on IRC > suggested that the preferred solution is to swap the BuildRequires to > pkgconfig(libusb) - is that right? Is this going to stick around, or is > it going away too? Ideally you should switch BuildRequires to pkgconfig(libusb-1.0) I would say. Many packages will support building against the newer libusb API just fine. The libusb (now libusb-compat-0.1) package is just a small wrapper library that bridges some API differences. Benjamin > 1: I did find > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rename_libusb_packages_and_deprecated_old_api >after going digging, but that's for F35 and was marked as done - so >no further change from it was expected, if this is somehow related to it. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
libusb status?
Hi, today I went to build grub2 in rawhide and got this: DEBUG util.py:444: No matching package to install: 'libusb-devel' grub2 has a `BuildRequires: libusb-devel`, and suddenly that package doesn't exist anymore. libusb was apparently dead.package'd two days ago. So this is sudden, and I want to check what's going on here. I would have expected a change proposal about this[1], or at least some email about what's going on, what we're expected to do, etc.. Speaking of which, what *are* we expected to do? Aleksei on IRC suggested that the preferred solution is to swap the BuildRequires to pkgconfig(libusb) - is that right? Is this going to stick around, or is it going away too? Be well, --Robbie 1: I did find https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rename_libusb_packages_and_deprecated_old_api after going digging, but that's for F35 and was marked as done - so no further change from it was expected, if this is somehow related to it. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
